LCA News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kailash »

More important than that news from Tarmak007 is the upcoming article detailing the technical challenges that were faced. Pic looks like some kind of static test on the landing gear assembly.. Awaiting details!
Last edited by Kailash on 10 Feb 2012 14:36, edited 1 time in total.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

[Self Delete]
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by krishnan »

NP is probably what is slowing down LCA....esp with the comment that ADA/HAL is giving too much imp to IAF version

Good .. atleast they have learned a lot of lesson which will be helpful in FGFA / LCA MK2 ...
member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by member_22605 »

The NP-1 has a separate team and is in no way related to the AF team(on HAL's side). Infact each A/C has its own team of flight test engineers and my ex roomie works on the NP-1 and he has been busy ever since the roll out. I am not sure about the ADA guys but i believe they have a separate team too. The roll out actually happened with a lot of haste and my personal opinion(and my friend's too) is that it was done to maybe please the belligerent media. But now things are looking very good for the N-LCA, infact the NP-1 and PV-6 both have the same team and the PV-6 also is in an advance state of development and you may hear the good news soon(relatively). Side by side NP-1 looks sexier (and different mainly) than the PV-6.
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by krishnan »

PV - 6 ???
member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by member_22605 »

weaponized trainer!
neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 853
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by neerajb »

How is it going to be different from the regular trainer? I thought the trainer is combat capable just like any other Tejas?

Cheers....
member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by member_22605 »

An MMR, stations wired for missiles and other weapons, EW suite, in all its like a twin seat LSP-4
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

raghuk wrote:An MMR, stations wired for missiles and other weapons, EW suite, in all its like a twin seat LSP-4
RaghuK if not classified, what is common between our MMR and EL 2032? because there is lot confusion.

Has the r-73 tests been done at Goa. Will PV-6 be testing Derby integration?
Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Badar »

Assume the nLCA program had succeeded, was on time and in capability roughly equivalent to the AF LCA Mk-I. So for mumble billion dollars for the carrier, escort group and support tail we would be able to throw at the enemy - all of a couple of dozen nLCA.

Unlike the AF where the LCA would form the lowest part of the capability matrix - the nLCA is supposed to be the spearhead of the surface navy. Why was the navy willing to accept the low capability LCA to crown the umpteen billions of CVBG investment?

The case for AF LCA is clear. What was the argument for the nLCA?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

without catapult, Mig29K and nLCA are the only two options for ADS1.
given the problems in Mikoyan, perhaps it was felt good to have a Plan-B with an eye to the future also.

ADS2+ might be bigger, but ADS1 will have a 50 year lifespan. can you take bets if Mikoyan will exist in 20 years and what is after sales service will be ? :mrgreen: they have no new project, no funding barring Mig29 rework and its clear Sukhoi is the one going fwd with pakfa and pakda.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by tsarkar »

Badar wrote:Assume the nLCA program had succeeded, was on time and in capability roughly equivalent to the AF LCA Mk-I. So for mumble billion dollars for the carrier, escort group and support tail we would be able to throw at the enemy - all of a couple of dozen nLCA.
Ummm, in India the carrier protects the escorts. Let me explain.

Other than US and French navies that had full spectrum capability carriers, UK, Russia and India have modest expectations from its carriers.

UK carriers were ASW to protect shipping channels vital to Britannia and later Harriers to protect the Seakings. They could support limited campaigns like Falklands where Argentinian aircraft had limited ToT because of range from their home bases.

Russian carriers provided air cover to their missile carrying cruisers and submarines. That is why even their carriers carried a huge missile load.

Similarly Indian carriers with limited ~ 20 fighters deployed at peak strength will not be able to maintain a high strike offensive tempo. The carriers & Harriers were to protect the missile carrying Missile Craft/Corvettes/Frigates/Destroyers from Exocet armed Mirage 5 and Harpoon armed Orions. That is why Kora class carries an amazing 16 missiles per ship and no air defence. They would be protected by the Harriers. So Viraat escorts Kora, rather than the other way round.

Now LCA/JF-17/Gripen old gen/US F-5/MiG-21/J-7 performance specs are just better that modern AJT/LIFT. These are deliberately designed with modest capabilities to serve limited roles. NLCA will do fleet Air Defence with its 4 Derby and 2 R73, Anti Shipping strike and LGB strikes in support of amphibious ops. Both carriers will not carry sufficient aircraft to sustain intense campaigns.
uddu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by uddu »

How can one only mention Derby and completely forget the Astra Mk1 and MkII?
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

Badar wrote:Unlike the AF where the LCA would form the lowest part of the capability matrix - the nLCA is supposed to be the spearhead of the surface navy. Why was the navy willing to accept the low capability LCA to crown the umpteen billions of CVBG investment? The case for AF LCA is clear. What was the argument for the nLCA?
Yes, this is somewhat the point, however, the NLCA will not be the spearhead for the IN. That will be either the MiG-29K OR the newer acquisition, an RFP for which has been sent out. Point is, with a small airframe and small engines, they really have to manage to keep the weight down or it'll be tough - jmt though.
Singha wrote:without catapult, Mig29K and nLCA are the only two options for ADS1.
given the problems in Mikoyan, perhaps it was felt good to have a Plan-B with an eye to the future also.
I think the Rafale could be very likely option as well. While it does not operate STOBAR as of now, it has more than enough power (better than the MiG-29K or Su-33) to do so. IIRC, the IN had evaluated it way back, and it was the price that had made them choose the Fulcrum.
uddu wrote:How can one only mention Derby and completely forget the Astra Mk1 and MkII?
Probly because the Astra is nowhere in sight as of now?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kanson »

pandyan wrote:Kanson ji,

We have the following variants of LCA MK I (AF, Navy, Trainer). Is the plan to rev each version independently to MK II (AF->AF II, Navy -> Navy II, Trainer -> Trainer II)?
I guess, it will be.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kanson »

Badar wrote:Assume the nLCA program had succeeded, was on time and in capability roughly equivalent to the AF LCA Mk-I. So for mumble billion dollars for the carrier, escort group and support tail we would be able to throw at the enemy - all of a couple of dozen nLCA.
Is it not stated that bulk of nLCA will be of Mk2?
The case for AF LCA is clear. What was the argument for the nLCA?
It is mentioned that nLCA Mk2 will fulfill their mission requirement.
Unlike the AF where the LCA would form the lowest part of the capability matrix - the nLCA is supposed to be the spearhead of the surface navy. Why was the navy willing to accept the low capability LCA to crown the umpteen billions of CVBG investment?
It is been the expectation & demand of IAF that, whether it is Su-30, MMRCA or LCA mk2, though they are classified as heavy, medium and light, they all will have standard capabilities. IOW, LCA Mk2 is expected to face the same opponent and take part in std ops like of that MMRCA and Su-30. JMT.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by merlin »

raghuk wrote:weaponized trainer!
So this is completely new! There never was a PV-6 AFAIK.
Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Badar »

So there are three views on nLCA.

1. A long term backup alternate for MiG-29K (in itself a 'forced' choice for Gorshkov). Seems eminently reasonable.
If so what priority could one resonably expect from ADA for nLCA. i.e. must-have AF version vs plan B naval version?

2. The 'ADS' carrier doctrine is one which I thought was now discarded and originally used to fly under the IAF opposition to fleet air arm. The ADS view was quite true in the Harrier-carrier days but unlikely to hold true for the future. IAC2 onwards carriers are likely to be large ships equipped with catapults. More would be expected of them than just fleet defense. The IN will see the induction of Barak-2MR and Barak-2ER equipped ships (probably P-17A) which are entirely adequate for fleet air defense. The fleet air arm can surely be used more offensively than now.

Vikki is covered by MiG-29K. IAC2 will require something better than nLCA. This leaves ViraatVikrant as the likeliest carrier whose primary armament would be nLCA. It is interesting to note that Fulcrum purchase is sufficient to cover both Vikki and ViraatVikrant needs.

3. IN wanted something better than nLCA/MiG-29K (suggestion is Rafale) but could not purchase it due to Russian stipulation of Russian sourced airwing and cost. If this was the primary reason then what is the position today.
Last edited by Badar on 11 Feb 2012 00:30, edited 1 time in total.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by nachiket »

raghuk, do you know what is the status of LSP-7? Is there a possibility of it flying in the next couple of months. I am rather more interested in seeing the AF version get closer to induction quickly than the Naval version. The navy already made it clear that only the naval version of the MK2 will be inducted. The NP-1 and it's brothers will only be used for solving the technical challenges in developing a naval fighter so that the Mk2 naval version development would be smooth. In any case with 45 Mig-29Ks coming in, the navy is not going to be short of aircraft anytime soon.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by nachiket »

Badar wrote:
Vikki is covered by MiG-29K. IAC2 will require something better than nLCA. This leaves Viraat as the likeliest carrier whose primary armament would be nLCA. It is interesting to note that Fulcrum purchase is sufficient to cover both Vikki and Viraat needs.
I highly doubt the Viraat will ever host the NLCA or any other aircraft besides the Harrier. It is up for retirement as soon as the Vikramaditya is operationalized and what's left of the Harriers will serve till then.

The NLCA will most likely serve on the IAC1/2. It's smaller size may enable them to carry more aircraft. They might carry a mix of NLCAs and whatever other aircraft that the navy decides to buy, if it does. The NLCA can take care of fleet air defense while the larger aircraft can be used for anti-shipping and land attack.
Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Badar »

nachiket wrote:I highly doubt the Viraat will ever host the NLCA or any other aircraft besides the Harrier. It is up for retirement as soon as the Vikramaditya is operationalized and what's left of the Harriers will serve till then.
I meant Vikrant not Viraat. Corrected it above as well.
The NLCA will most likely serve on the IAC1/2. It's smaller size may enable them to carry more aircraft. They might carry a mix of NLCAs and whatever other aircraft that the navy decides to buy, if it does. The NLCA can take care of fleet air defense while the larger aircraft can be used for anti-shipping and land attack
Yep, nLCA could be used to flesh out the numbers a bit. I am just not sure how much sense it would be to have air group of two different types in small numbers. I wonder if the tradeoff of a few addition wings against additional complexity is worthwhile.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kartik »

merlin wrote:
raghuk wrote:weaponized trainer!
So this is completely new! There never was a PV-6 AFAIK.
There was. But it wasn't known that this would be another twin-seater that would be used for weaponisation trials of the twin seat trainer.

PS Subramanyam interview from F mag
What is the current status of the LCA programme?
We have developed 2 technology demonstrators TD-1 and TD-2; we have the four prototypes PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4. The Limited Series Production aircraft ranging from LSP-1 to LSP-4 are all flying. TD-1, TD-2 and PV-1 have now become outdated and are used for ground testing or testing of equipment that needs to be developed for the Tejas. All the aircraft from PV-2 onwards are participating in the flying test campaign. LSP-5 is currently the final ‘Standard of Preparation’ that we will deliver to the Indian Air Force (IAF) and this aircraft is expected to fly this month. LSP-6 and LSP-7 will follow and have been earmarked for the user evaluation by pilots belonging to the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE).

Both the IAF and the Indian Navy have committed some money for the Tejas Mk-2 which will be equipped with a higher performing engine. We now have a concurrent programme to develop the Tejas Mk-2 version for the IAF and the Indian Navy. The PV-5 which is a trainer version of the Tejas’ is flying and another aircraft PV-6 is expected to fly by the end of this year. The maiden flight of the Tejas Mk-2 is expected to take place in December 2014 and production will begin in December 2016.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

It s going to be a very long time before the NLAC will serve aboard an IN carrier.In the "hot and high" environment and stringent launch and recovery systems of STOBAR carrier ops,the NLCA will need a more powerful engine than the IAF version,to be able to carry a useful load of ordnance with sufficient range and endurance as well. One cannot see an IOC date before 2017/18 at the earliest,if at all and there was one report which said "2020" would be the date of induction! We already have the MIG-29K in service (for sceptics) ahead of the arrival of the Gorky and totally a figure of about 50 on order to equip the Gorcky and IAC-1.Upgraded versons of these are bound to appear with the next lot,if the IN after operating them finds them fitting the bill.By 2020 also,the naval variant of the FGFA will hopefully also be available.At that time,who will want a 20 yr.old design in the form of the NLCA? Its delayed arrival hs and will accelerate its diluted relevance and as the years pass,increase its obsolescence.

The AURA programme,if envisioned to have a naval aspect also,similar to the USN's X-47B,will revolutionise IN carrier warfare if and when it arrives.many moons ago I mentioned that using the LCA's experience,we should develop a UCAV version out of it.One hopes that something similar is being done with the AURA.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by nachiket »

Philip wrote:It s going to be a very long time before the NLAC will serve aboard an IN carrier.In the "hot and high" environment and stringent launch and recovery systems of STOBAR carrier ops,the NLCA will need a more powerful engine than the IAF version,to be able to carry a useful load of ordnance with sufficient range and endurance as well.
Hot and High means High temperature an High Altitude. How can a carrier at sea level be at "high" altitude?

The runway is small obviously, but the Navy is going to induct the Mk2 version only. The F414 should provide adequate power to the Mk2 Naval version to enable it to undertake unassisted takeoffs from carriers, unless the Mk2 is significantly heavier than the Mk1.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

nachiket wrote: Hot and High means High temperature an High Altitude. How can a carrier at sea level be at "high" altitude?
My, my. Picky .........................

The ramp is 'high' above a leveled sea. And, if you really want it 'high' then base it in the land of the fair: Russia. Surely you will agree that Russia is WAY above IO.

Anyways, ............................................

nLCA, no matter what even the CNS says, the IN cannot drop this ball. Granted statements have been rather misleading, but, like the other LCA this is going places. IMHO of course.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by geeth »

The difference between LCA and NLCA is something like the difference between civilian nuclear power reactors and submarine nuclear reactors. It is more complex and room for manoeuvre is less.

As regards power, it will use the engine used for LCA MKII and any shortage still will have to be compensated with a lower weapon load
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by vic »

raghuk wrote:An MMR, stations wired for missiles and other weapons, EW suite, in all its like a twin seat LSP-4
Hi, Can you tell us something about LSP-6?
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by merlin »

Kartik wrote:
merlin wrote:
So this is completely new! There never was a PV-6 AFAIK.
There was. But it wasn't known that this would be another twin-seater that would be used for weaponisation trials of the twin seat trainer.

PS Subramanyam interview from F mag
What is the current status of the LCA programme?
We have developed 2 technology demonstrators TD-1 and TD-2; we have the four prototypes PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4. The Limited Series Production aircraft ranging from LSP-1 to LSP-4 are all flying. TD-1, TD-2 and PV-1 have now become outdated and are used for ground testing or testing of equipment that needs to be developed for the Tejas. All the aircraft from PV-2 onwards are participating in the flying test campaign. LSP-5 is currently the final ‘Standard of Preparation’ that we will deliver to the Indian Air Force (IAF) and this aircraft is expected to fly this month. LSP-6 and LSP-7 will follow and have been earmarked for the user evaluation by pilots belonging to the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE).

Both the IAF and the Indian Navy have committed some money for the Tejas Mk-2 which will be equipped with a higher performing engine. We now have a concurrent programme to develop the Tejas Mk-2 version for the IAF and the Indian Navy. The PV-5 which is a trainer version of the Tejas’ is flying and another aircraft PV-6 is expected to fly by the end of this year. The maiden flight of the Tejas Mk-2 is expected to take place in December 2014 and production will begin in December 2016.
Thanks! I missed that somehow.

ADA will have a nice set of aircraft to test technologies on once serial productions start for the IAF and Mk1 development is considered complete.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

He!He! I enjoyed those missiles,I guess quite a few of us are at a "high" alt. indeed! Someone once asked me what weed I was puffing.

NR,Nachi,The "high" point of my post was the relative inferiority of the NLCA when compared with Chinese naval Flankers (which it will confront when operating in the Indo-China Sea) which have a service ceiling of supposedly 18,000m,as opposed to the LCA at 16,000m.The LCA in current form with its underpowered engine is going to be no match when confronted with a Flanker which outperforms it almost in every aspect .Taking of from a carrier STOBAR style puts added limitations to its performance.If the aircraft was available to be inducted within a couple of years ,it would be worthwhile given the fact that the carriers too are delayed in arrival.Looking at the new aircraft under development by our principal enemy,by the end of the decade,the IN I'm sure would want something far more potent than an NLCA.Even the MIG-29K by 2020 will need to have a more capable sister naval fighter,preferably of the stealth variety.

Having sunk in 900 crores into the project,the IN certainly wants its pound of flesh,but it may have to like the IAF,wait and wait and wait,until the NLCA is perfected. Looking at the amount of differences between the two variants,I am not that optimistic.It would require herculean task to accelerate dev. of the NLCA to meet a cut-off date/timelines after which its relevance reduces by the day.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Prasad »

Philip saar,

I think Mao in the aero india lecture/talk said that it might be an underweight baby but its our baby, or something of that nature. Also, they believe that while the NLCA isn't what they want now, they're backing the program to get what they want in future. A medium weight bird, built from the ground up with IN involvement. Something of a N-MCA. That is their final target and the nlca is just a stepping stone. Very good thinking acc to me. So no point cribbing about lca vs flanker atm. Yes, its a problem and i'm sure they see it too. Do we have a choice?
member_19648
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by member_19648 »

@Philip: nice posts, but the LCA MK I is never going to be operational from a carrier, it is the MK II that would be in service. The NP I is a test vehicle and a trainer so it is just to verify the suitability of carrier operations and iron out issues. The more powerful GE F414 engines haven't arrived yet (as per my knowledge, I may be wrong), so the development of naval variant can't stop. The LCA MK II would be a capable aircraft (lets just hope there are no big delays) and would be an even match if not better than the Chinese types.
vcsekhar
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 01 Aug 2009 13:27
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by vcsekhar »

Cain Marko wrote: No lynching - it is a fair opinion, and I happen to agree with it.
[RANT ON]I can understand the IAF wanted something smallish as a MiG-21 replacement and so they went with the LCA "smallest/lightest" goal. But what constrains the Navy from going slightly bigger? I would hardly be surprised if this is just the start of their problems for NLCA. It is hard enough to build an LCA for the IAF, and now we want to do the same for naval ops, that too STOBAR ops! Effin' nuts - is it any wonder that almost every CV operating today has twin engined fighters barring the Shar? And no, please don't cite the JSF- they are having problems enough - not to mention it is being developed by those who have a century's worth of experience in making fighters, not to mention it operates with CATs. Twin engined a/c are good not only in terms of safety but also tend to provide greater thrust - a critical requirement for STOBAR ops. This bird is going to need some v.serious power and fuel fraction. Even if they get the F414, it is going to be damned tight - perhaps they will use the EPE? What will that mean in terms of intake redesign?

NO, imvho - the development for the NLCA should've been around a twin engined design - start testing out with two GE-404s or even RD33s, and later progress to Kaveris. Something stable and known. Use the experience gained via the Mig-29K development in which the IN was such an integral part.

I think the IN is just as much to blame as the ADA in this - it wasn't just the ADA that wanted "lightest/greatest" this time - the IN too seemed all for it knowing fully well that by pushing for a tiny single engined bird, you are completely bucking the trend. The CNS can complain all he wants, but perhaps he should have complained a LOT earlier.

Sorry if I come across as cynical about the LCA - don't have much confidence in this. It was/is hard enough to get a decently powered landbased LCA for the IAF, and now they keep the same constraints where power is even more critical. Let us see...[/RANT OFF]
All right Cain... i will take your bait...
1. LCA size for NLCA... there is no way that ADA could have designed a new airframe (larger size) for the NLCA.. there just was'nt enough design manpower to design a new a/c and test it in the time frame available. as you can see even the LCA has slipped schedule for so many years, who would have supported a new a/c design just for a small navy requirement.

2. The double engine requirement was essential earlier due to the low operational reliability of the jet engines of the day, the new engines like the current gen F404/414 are orders of magnitude more reliable than the older ones. as far as engine reliability goes, i am not sure if you are aware, the IN or the RN has never lost a sea harrier due to an engine failure over the sea till now. Yes losses were sustained due to other reasons, but not due to engine failures. The famous one on the beach was due to the pilots failure to adjust the nozzle position.

As far as the question of Rafale goes (not raised by you CM), this seems to repeat every now and then, the Rafale needs a catapult, which we don't have nor does France or Russia, the only country that has the catapult tech is the USA and they are not willing to share it. this was the biggest reason why we went with the Mig and the ski jump carriers. And yes, i know that the Vikrant had a Cat originally, this was used for much lighter a/c like the sea hawks and we never had the design for this in any case. Even the UK which originally pioneered the CAT tech has to buy one from the US now for the use with their carriers as they moved away from the F35B.
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Sid »

Sources say that in horizontal direction, the arrested shock recovery produces axial loads on aircraft structure of the tune of 4.5 g, calling for re-certification of all line replacement units (LRUs), components and associated systems of naval version to ensure fail safe operation repeatedly.
. The testing and certification of unique design features for LCA Navy called for systematic plan of action to create new test facilities and deep study of certification philosophy.
The ADA has designed and fabricated various types of simulators, including engineer-in-loop, real-time software development and maintenance. The shore-based test facility (SBTF) at Goa with ski-jump launch and arrested recovery similar to aircraft carrier is ready. The arrester hook test facility, LEVCON test rig and landing gear drop test rig are also developed in-house.
An excellent article. These snippets are proof that a lot of hard work went into making NLCA and that too in half the time India took to achieve IAF version of LCA.

That's why its important to research and increase India's tech capabilities. You cannot be a superpower by buying weapons from abroad.

This is the kind of reporting which is required. Just makes you feel proud of who we are :)
mukul_chou
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 24 Jul 2008 15:24

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by mukul_chou »

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

vcsekhar wrote:All right Cain... i will take your bait...
1. LCA size for NLCA... there is no way that ADA could have designed a new airframe (larger size) for the NLCA.. there just was'nt enough design manpower to design a new a/c and test it in the time frame available. as you can see even the LCA has slipped schedule for so many years, who would have supported a new a/c design just for a small navy requirement.

2. The double engine requirement was essential earlier due to the low operational reliability of the jet engines of the day, the new engines like the current gen F404/414 are orders of magnitude more reliable than the older ones. as far as engine reliability goes, i am not sure if you are aware, the IN or the RN has never lost a sea harrier due to an engine failure over the sea till now. Yes losses were sustained due to other reasons, but not due to engine failures. The famous one on the beach was due to the pilots failure to adjust the nozzle position.

As far as the question of Rafale goes (not raised by you CM), this seems to repeat every now and then, the Rafale needs a catapult, which we don't have nor does France or Russia, the only country that has the catapult tech is the USA and they are not willing to share it. this was the biggest reason why we went with the Mig and the ski jump carriers. And yes, i know that the Vikrant had a Cat originally, this was used for much lighter a/c like the sea hawks and we never had the design for this in any case. Even the UK which originally pioneered the CAT tech has to buy one from the US now for the use with their carriers as they moved away from the F35B.
Not trying to bait anyone Sekhar. But I beg to differ:

1) Yes design from scratch will take longer - but then NLCA itself is not happening anytime super quickly. Actually this is precisely the point - the NLCA required/requires tremendous redesign, the sort of work that has been terribly underestimated if we are to go by previous reports. And I will be really surprised if they get anything before 2018. If you have to do so much work any way, the time frame becomes meaningless, might as well start afresh. Second, the IN lost the opportunity to be the prime movers on AMCA imho - in fact PS had stated that it would've been a lot better had they started out with the naval variant first instead of the AF variant for the LCA. Since $$s will be reqd. for both NLCA and AMCA, why not start with IN variant first here?

2) Irrespective of the solitary example of the SHAR, which is a STOVL bird anyway, the norm for fighters on board carriers is twin engine. Nobody is talking about reliability of engines perse; by itself this issue might have been largely mitigated, but in the context of naval ops it would always help to have two engines. Still further, there is a crucial need for high TWR on STOBAR carriers - and I don't see a single engined bird doing this unless you want to use WW II vintage a/c. Btw, many Shars have been lost to engine failure, if not during IN service, definitely with the RN. There is also the issue of bird strikes, where twin engines provide greater safety. I think NLCA problems are still to begin. Let us hope the F414 does the trick and that they can keep the weight down to manageable levels after reinforcing the frame.

3) Even though the last point was not directed at me, I'd like to point out that the Rafale was evaluated for STOBAR ops by the IN, and was not found wanting on technical reasons. Just too expensive iirc.
adarshp
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 05 Aug 2008 14:19
Location: du weldenwarden

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by adarshp »

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/226 ... ge-99.html

I did not realize this was still outstanding. I thought all these formalities were already over. I don't have a link to hand now, but I remember reading earlier that it was planned for the first set of engines to be available before end 2012 to enable integration into the airframe and therefore first flight of Mk2 by 2014. Eagerly waiting for confirmation that this remains the case. Can someone please confirm or has there already been news to the contrary that I missed? Thanks!
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

My "realistic" wishlist for 2012

1. LSP7 flying by end of Feb
2. LSP8 flying by end of March
3. LSP7/8 having capabilities to fire radar guided R-73, LGBs, Counter measures, AoA of 24deg, fully integrated Auto pilot, day/night all weather capability, wake penetration issues resolved, HMS guided missile cuing, cannon firing, ability to withstand G forces of 8/-3
4. fully functional PV5 trainer
5. LSP 4/5 upgraded to LSP 7/8 capabilities - August
6. field a fleet of 4 LCAs in bangalore and full exercising of these birds by ASTE
7. Exercises between M2k and the ASTE LCAs
8. full integration of R-77 on an LSP aircraft by Dec
9. SP1-4 delivered by Dec
10. Two Airframes of MK2 completed. One ground tested with current 404IN20 by year end and the other awaiting the 414 on ground - since the FADEC and other engine controls are is going to be very similar this might be possible
11. Reduced radar signature for LSPs and SP
12. PV1 with EW suite integrated and demo'ed to the IAF at Gwalior
13. weight reduction exercise via subsystem weight reduction(those huge rugged PCBs can be replaced by newer ones) and newer LRUs and newer truss with lighter high strength alloys and lighter/stronger composite skin. Gurus does LCA have a metallic truss ?
14. Datalink/networked capabilities onLSP7/8 by year end
15. Installation of improved LCA simulators in ASTE for pilot training
16. Air-Air refuelling capability on LSP
17. Today's Kaveri integrated first flight of PV
18. Offer to vietnam to co-develop systems on MK2 and production line setup there on orders
19. Spin recovery chute integrated LSP6 first flight
20. NP1 first flight by february and making arrested landing at SBTF INS Hansa by year end
21 IAF chief Browne going ga-ga about the Tejas

If wishes were horses then I would ride !!sigh!!
Let us see how many in the above list are accomplished. Hope to see AI 2013 where LCA Tejas takes off and goes as vertical as possible
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kakkaji »

From the above link:
Two other important issues that were dealt with by the committee were, GE wanted India to sign the deal with one of its subsidiaries and not with it, citing various reasons and GE wanted India to agree to pay liabilities in case the IAF used aircraft powered by these engines to carry nuclear weapons and in case that crashed in Pakistan.

India was not keen on both the propositions. “...We had cleared the engine that was proposed by GE and not any of its subsidiaries for us to consider that.We wanted the company which responded to the RFP to be responsible,” a source from ADA said, adding that GE has been conviced to even drop the clause that requires us to pay liabilities.

The decision to finalise the contract, sources said, was taken in a meeting held on January 22 and that the MoD is waiting for an occassion to announce the same.

When the deal comes through, which sources said is very likely to be cleared by the CCS, GE would ship 18 engines that could be straight away used and the remaining will be manufactured by HAL as it gets versed with the required technology, besides, GE will also help India integrate the engine with the airframe of the LCA.
Post Reply